Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

This is a discussion on Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Hopyard says: "just to keep the conversation lively. "
Hop, in some circles that is called "stirring crap"....

A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
Robert Heinlein

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

I think that would depend on what those actual powers were.
In the present case it appears that some assume they have powers that they do not. The only question to be resolved is who is it that is making that incorrect assumption.
As the legislature is assuming they have the power to compell the executive, and the executive is assuming they have the power to ignore the legislature, who is left to decide who is right?

SD was controversial here because he adamantly held that Marshall lacked the powers which SD asserted Marshall arrogated to himself and the court.

Based on the above, I would agree with SD. There is no question Marshall arrogated Article I rights to the court and tortured the interstate commerce clause. This impacted the course of our history and accomplished much that the Federalists could not get into the Constitution and still get it ratified.

I think that would depend on what those actual powers were.
In the present case it appears that some assume they have powers that they do not. The only question to be resolved is who is it that is making that incorrect assumption.
As the legislature is assuming they have the power to compell the executive, and the executive is assuming they have the power to ignore the legislature, who is left to decide who is right?

That one is easy, and has been answered many times. The Federal Court for The District of Columbia.
The broader question is, precedent and history notwithstanding, do they really? (I'm not saying they don't.) I'm saying
there certainly are arguments to be made, which have been made throughout our history, that they don't and may be ignored (though I am not on that side of the issue.)

If we took that route we'd have a totally Federalist style Monarchy with no control by either branch on The Executive.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

Ok. But if not a judicial resolution what is the alternative? Each side sends forth a champion for gladiatorial combat?
If it were to go to individual combat should it be on pay per view or cspan?

There is no alternative, which is why Marshall must be right even if the power he asserted isn't spelled out
word for word.

What is a bit less clear is whether or not The Executive can thumb his nose at both Congress and the Judiciary, but
even Nixon didn't try that one--- though he would have undoubtedly been impeached and convicted if he had.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

I see a lot happens when a day has to be taken off for an eye exam.. LOL When my eyes return to normal I will be able to give a better response, so please bear with me if I make occasional mistakes here. I will be dividing this up and responding to specific topics, though in general I am sorry to not see supporting citations, just more of the same as there has been.

Originally Posted by ksholder

~~snip ~~ I agree with what you posted in the first set of "*" above being items specifically called for in the Constitution with the limitation that the laws Congress makes are supported by their limited scope of duties as enumerated in the Constitution. I also agree that the second set of "*" are being done in response to laws passed by Congress. Where we part company is on whether the second set of "*" are Necessary and Proper to enforce the first or even if some of the enabling laws passed by Congress are Constitutional.

In the absence of states and their law enforcement capability, which is not against the US Constitution, a federal LE could possibly be read into the Constitution. The desire for the FF to have the states be the primary soverign (other than the people) and the federal government secondary and supportive to the states, there is nothing to suggest that the federal government would not rely on state LE efforts to enforce both state and federal laws. Heck, even to raise an army, the feds had to call on the states and people to participate.

Please elaborate and provide supporting citations.

Originally Posted by ksholder

Yes there was a navy authorized in the Constitution, but that was for border defense and to provide a common defense against external enemies and required certain capital assets that could not be quickly raised. Today's army also has such assets and it would be pretty tough to defend a nation with what a militia could bring, so we have a standing army which is practically in violation of the Constitiution. The government gets around this provision, not by being faithful to the intent of the Constitution and honest with the people. Congress passes enabling resolutions every 2 years as a work-around to the Constitution. A government that wanted to be faithful to its governing document would have amended it to allow for a standing army and the people today would have no problem with such an amendment.

Please elaborate and provide supporting citations.

Originally Posted by ksholder

Yes, there were certain FF that were in favor of a strong federal government, however, they had to compromise to have a less powerful federal government to get the Constitution ratified.

I will agree that many who supported The Articles of Confederation did in fact compromise much with the authoring of the Constitution and many of them "Anti-Federalists" perpretrated that the Presidency would be equal to that of a Monarch. Please read The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress) and how it states:

Originally Posted by Founder A. Hamilton

Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation. Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition to the intended President of the United States

Those against the Constitution at the time were the Anti-Federalists or what has through time, now become known as the Democratic Political Party.

Originally Posted by ksholder

The Constitution is not a document that allows the states and people certain privledges from an all-powerful federal government as some would like to see it.

Please provide supporting citations.

Originally Posted by ksholder

It was a document written and ratified by the states representing the people that created a limited federal government.

Agreed! But only after the BOR were authored and presented to the People to Ratify along with the Constitution to avoid the Govenrment becoming overly powerful or not being restricted in the abuses they could impose against the average Citizen.

Originally Posted by ksholder

The Constitution is the document that describes what that federal government is allowed to do - period. If it is not in the Constitution, the feds are not allowed to do it.

Here is where our biggest disagreement exists as the Constitution was intended to not be a carved in stone, inflexible object, but a living document. I would ask again that you would read the Federalist Papers.. The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress) Reading the Issues numbered 6 through 10 at this point would be good.

Originally Posted by ksholder

I hear you on the necessary and proper clause, but that was not designed to be used to facilitate support for all manner of laws that are not in the federal purview.

I will agree to an extent as there is one thing that I know of that exists no-where within the Constitution. Yet Congress without any authority what-so-ever hands out our hard earned tax dollars as Foreign Aid. But when in the Constitution in many places, Congress is given the Power as I have shown to not only make the Laws by which our Government operates but to also create courts to enforce the laws it passes, it is luancy to think that they do not have the power to create a Law Enforcement agency to investigate Law Breakers and then turn them over to the Judicial Department to stand trial. If you still wish to insist otherwise, again, Provide supporting documentation and citations.

Originally Posted by ksholder

Another clause that has been tortured to the benefit of the feds and detriment of the states and people is the interstate commerce clause. That torture started with another Federalist - John Marshall in the very early 1800s. That makes it historical, not Constitutional.

Again, please provide supporting documents that John Marshall was actually a Federalist and not an Anti-Federalist caught in an attempt at something unlawful. Oh.. and you might want to not refer to something that does not exist. The Interstate Commerce Clause? Drop the Interstate and you will be correct.

Originally Posted by ksholder

Abusing the necessary and proper clause as well as the interstate commerce clause has resulted in things like EPA, the Department of Education, DOE, BATFE and a host of other agencies that perform duties that have nothing to do with Constitutionally enumerated duties of the feds. The nature of any government is to expand, grow in size and power and, if left unchecked, consume those it is supposed to serve. Reading items into the Constitution is one way the Goverment has rationalized its expanding mission and the people have not been bright enough to say - get back in your box. At some point, and that point may be in the past, the government will be powerful enough (legitimately or not) to turn citizens into subjects. We will all rue that day.

Where we differ is in how we read the Constitution. I think that it means exactly what its drafters said in it. Others want to read in or interpret what it says, in effect, guessing at what the FF meant. Folks, the Constitution was written to be understood by the common farmer of the day when it was written. It was not designed to be word-smithed, psycho-analyzed and otherwise tortured to work in what one wants to see there. There is a mechanism for that and it's called AN AMENDMENT.

The FF knew that the Constitution would have to change to support our country in times that were different than theirs, so they gave us a mechanism to do that

Goes to my statement above as to our Constitution being a living document.

Originally Posted by ksholder

Convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures that a change is needed and you will get your change. There are many things the feds do that are not Constitutional that they could amend the document to allow - a standing army for instance - but they are too lazy to do the work. We the people should stand up and say - This is what the Constitution says, if you don't like it, change it, but until you do, abide by it.

Just because something can be changed, does not make it Right to change. Thus we come back to the Necessary and Proper argument.

Re: LkWd_Don: Wow, that's a bunch and I'll let K defend himself. You and I are mostly in agreement on the above post.
One point though, maybe I didn't understand or something was misstated. John Marshall was indeed a FEDERALIST.
Notwithstanding close friendship with Monroe, and as best I can tell just about everyone including Adams and Jefferson,
he was not an anti-Federalist. He struck down at least 50 state laws as unconstitutional, thus establishing Federal primacy.
(Just read that a few hours ago
while nearing the end of a biography on Monroe. "The Last Founding Father, H.G. Unger.)

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

LkWd_Don - It is clear our world views are dramatically different. I doubt we will change the other's opinion and we are hijacking this thread. This will be my last post in our discussion on this thread.

You believe the Constitution is a living document - I don't

You believe the Federalist Papers were a definitive narration of the Constitution that represents all FFs - I don't. The Federalist Papers were the Federalists trying to convice the public to back the Constitution and they tried to show how they could not abuse it and result in a strong federal government. Heck in Federalist Paper 84, Hamilton argues a BOR is not needed as the Constitution already had those protections in it - yeah, right. In short, the Federalist Papers - which I have read - were a marketing campaign by people on one side of the argument to get the public behind the Constitution.

You don't think there is a Interstate Commerce Clause - technically, you are right, but it is common to hear the interstate portion of this clause referred to as the interstate commerce clause. Because I was not concerned wiht the foreign or indian portions of the whole Commerce Clause, I used the commonly-accepted moniker interstate commerce clause.

You believe I think the Constitution is carved in stone - I don't. Had you read my post, in its entirety, you would have noted that I refer to the amendment process. If it were carved in stone, I would not note this feature of the Constitution. I do, however, think the intent of the founders was to make the Constitution difficult to change so it could not be changed capriciously.

You think Marshall was an anti-federalist - yeah, right. Good luck with that interpretation - got a reference?

Lastly, you think the only thing the Feds do that is not supported by the Constitution is foreign aid (source - post 128) - I have a dramatically different view of what is Constitutionally supported federal activity.

LkWd_Don - It is clear our world views are dramatically different. I doubt we will change the other's opinion and we are hijacking this thread. This will be my last post in our discussion on this thread.

You believe the Constitution is a living document - I don't

You believe the Federalist Papers were a definitive narration of the Constitution that represents all - I don't. The Federalist Papers were the Federalists trying to convice the public to back the Constitution and they tried to show how they could not abuse it and result in a strong federal government. Heck in Federalist Paper 84, Hamilton argues a BOR is not needed as the Constitution already had those protections in it - yeah, right. In short, the Federalist Papers - which I have read - were a marketing campaign by people on one side of the argument to get the public behind the Constitution.

You don't think there is a Interstate Commerce Clause - technically, you are right, but it is common to hear the interstate portion of this clause referred to as the interstate commerce clause. Because I was not concerned wiht the foreign or indian portions of the whole Commerce Clause, I used the commonly-accepted moniker interstate commerce clause.

You believe I think the Constitution is carved in stone - I don't. Had you read my post, in its entirety, you would have noted that I refer to the amendment process. If it were carved in stone, I would not note this feature of the Constitution. I do, however, think the intent of the founders was to make the Constitution difficult to change so it could not be changed capriciously.

You think Marshall was an anti-federalist - yeah, right. Good luck with that interpretation - got a reference?

Lastly, you think the only thing the Feds do that is not supported by the Constitution is foreign aid - I have a dramatically different view of what is Constitutionally supported federal activity.

Peace out.

I was about to suggest we take this discussion to the Political Threads, but with how you are proclaiming your last post to be the end, I will make this my last post as well.

With your not being open to posting anything to support your position, I am left to view all that you say as unsubstantiated, I even gave you an easy one to provide a supportive cite for with my questioning about John Marshall, which you have misconstrued into my saying that he was other than a Federalist. Think that one over.

Yes, I view the Constitution as a Living Document as it changes and grows as the United States of American changes and grows. As far your insisting that I believe our Founders views and opinions that we can find in the Federalist Papers were anything more than an insight into their thinking at the time of the writing of our Constitution is again a misstatement or misconstruing of what I was saying.

I know of more than just one thing that our Congress does that is not permitted anywhere within our Constitution (things I call Anti-Constitutional till they are proven Unconstitutional), I simply pointed one specific one out, but I can see that the Creation of Federal Police Forces to assist in the execution of the various laws that Congress passes as being a legitimate power contained in the 18th Clause, making the DOJ, FBI, DEA, NSA, Park Rangers and US Marshals all legitimate LEO agencies under our Constitution. If you do not, then you have a 1st Amendment right under our Constitution to petition for a redress of grievances.

Now, hopefully you understand that first you must violate a law that will cause one of those agencies to arrest and charge you, then you can fight tooth and nail all the way to the SCOTUS if need be trying to convince someone who matters considerably more than me, that you are right.

I can only hope that you have very deep pockets as it will be a very expensive fight and that you have many years to devote when you fail.

Last edited by LkWd_Don; May 11th, 2012 at 04:59 PM.
Reason: correct a typo

House Republican leaders sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder last Friday demanding that he fork over the thousands upon thousands of documents that the Justice Department has continued to withhold from a congressional investigative committee.

In the letter, House Speaker John Boehner warned that the House will be prepared to “act to fulfill our constitutional obligations” if Holder continues stonewalling Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is leading the investigation of Operation Fast & Furious.

The “constitutional obligations” mentioned in Boehner’s letter could include holding Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, which could result in extensive jail time and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, considering that multiple charges are involved.

Boehner’s letter -- which was cosigned by other top Republicans in the House, including Rep. Issa -- said the American people “deserve to know” how an operation like Fast & Furious could have continued for so long, and it demands a full accounting of “who knew of and approved an operation that placed weapons in the hands of drug cartels.”

The letter states that Americans have lost confidence in the ability of the administration to police these abuses by itself, although it does not call for the Attorney General to step down. Currently, more than 100 congressmen have called for the Attorney General to step down or be fired -- a move which is also supported by Gun Owners of America.

Previous news articles have noted Boehner’s reluctance to push for contempt charges against Eric Holder. And so it’s not clear whether this letter represents a change of heart, or if it’s simply “smoke and mirrors” designed to make it seem that the leadership is “doing something.”

Originally Posted by Pistology
Are you telling us with a straight face that "this" isn't going to be an issue into this fall's election season?

Yes. Outside of elements of the gun owning community, most folks give it no attention and could care less.Until a subpoena by Congress is enforced by a Federal Judge, its gong nowhere, and there isn't enough time till silly season
for anything but posturing and playing games; not that the Congress ever does anything but posture and play games.

And notwithstanding what was put in post 58, Executive Privilege is real....

Originally Posted by LkWd_Don

There are times when National Security is an issue.. However, when it comes to Congress, there is a right way to bring that argument into play.. Declining to discuss it "While" persons not possessing appropriate clearance are present would be one way to do it without too much argument.. In other-word, stating that you would be glad to answer in a "Closed Session" due to National Security Issues.. But simply trying to say, I will not answer on grounds that it Violates National Security when talking to those who in effect determine what National Security is.. is just plain Bogus!

Well said!

Originally Posted by mcp1810

But his authority to adjourn is limited. The president can only adjourn Congress when there is a disagreement as to when to adjourn. It its not absolute authority to dismiss them at his pleasure.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Well, I'm sure such a disagreement could be quickly arrived at. Fortunately, he doesn't have to dirty his hands.
They are all heading for the home front to immerse themselves amongst us ordinary folks to whom they will
tell tall tales about how they contributed to making our life better. Meanwhile, back on topic, its going nowhere, nor should it.

Originally Posted by Spirit51

I just got a email from my House Representative, Vicky Hartzler about the email I sent her on the subject. I would like to share it with you all.

Dear Friend,

Knowing of your interest in government transparency and the urgent need for reform in the Department of Justice, I wanted to update you on recent Congressional actions related to the scandal known as Project Gunrunner, or Operation Fast and Furious. Since assuming office, I have grown increasingly concerned about the gross overreach of power and disregard for our Constitution displayed by many officials in government. Several months ago, I called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign due to his failure to instill accountability and respect for our laws at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Note: Please be sure to fill out the survey on the right side of this e-mail and let me know how you feel about the latest developments on Project Gunrunner. By doing so, you will also be added to my weekly newsletter list. Thanks so much for participating!

The House of Representatives has called on Attorney General Holder to account for his role in Operation Fast and Furious in particular. As we learn more details about this gun-trafficking operation, we find astonishing recklessness and an appalling cover up effort. The Attorney General appears to have made troubling decisions to hide information from the public and from a Congressional inquiry. His lack of appropriate oversight during this operation ultimately allowed guns to disappear into criminal networks, and resulted in the death of at least one American law enforcement officer, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Unbelievably, of approximately 80,000 documents that DOJ has identified as pertaining to Fast and Furious, only 6,000 of them have been released for review. And, of the seventy DOJ officials involved in Fast and Furious, Members of Congress have been refused access to almost fifty individuals.

These troubling actions by Attorney General Holder became more blatant at a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing earlier this month. The Committee questioned Attorney General Holder repeatedly for the rationale behind transferring 2,000 weapons to Mexican gangs. Committee Chairman Darrel Issa has been exceedingly respectful of the Attorney General during these hearings, even allowing the deadline for submitting documents to be pushed back again and again. However, my colleagues and I are losing our patience with Mr. Holder’s equivocation and obstruction. In a failure this profound we need truth and transparency. That is why Congressman Issa threatened the Attorney General with contempt for failure to share the information which has been subpoenaed for so long.

I will continue to support Congressional efforts to hold the responsible parties accountable for their participation and approval of a flawed program that has contributed to the loss of American life. Given the obstructive nature of the Attorney General’s recent Congressional testimony and demonstrated failure to fulfill his duties, I believe Attorney General Holder should resign. I believe that a public official who has failed to uphold integrity and has apparently misled the American people is no longer fit for service. I will be monitoring this issue closely in the months ahead.

As always, please do not hesitate to share your perspective with me. It is a privilege to be your voice in Congress.

Vicky Hartzler
Member of Congress

The Poll was asking if I thought Holder should be asked to resign. I voted YES.

Great letter!

Hopyard, with due respect, it seems to me that you underestimate the legs of this story. It's here, the voters "outside of elements of the gun owning community" care, and it's impacting the public perception of the current regime. And voters are the true court of last resort. An opinion piece in today's WSJ admits that "stupid policy decisions" like F&F don't, in and of themselves, rise to the level of criminal culpability, but Holder's facing a contempt of congress vote is certainly bad for him and his boss as Holder's responses to the vote are for him a Hobson's choice between "standing by as a U.S. attorney begins prosecuting him; directing the U.S. attorney not to prosecute him; or invoking executive privilege to justify not releasing the documents Congress seeks."
In the first case of "standing by", he's a sitting duck for Republicans in this year's election; in the second, ordering "hands off", he displays public disorder and highlights the question to voters of what he's hiding; and, third, EP, with its "tainted history", goes directly to Obama's involvement in the F&F affair.

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Originally Posted by LkWd_Don
....
So as you can see [the president] has limited authority over Congress, very limited. Even Congress has tried to claim he could not convene or adjourn, but as anyone can see by our Constitution he has that Power.

Then that settles it all. Send them home.

Check mate.

"Check mate" is an interesting choice of diction since its etymology is probably from the Farsi (language of Persia), "Shah maat" - the king is dead - as would be the political career of any president who dared to adjourn congress for an arbitrary cause. And you alluded to the political fate of Nixon had he "thumbed his nose" at the other two branches of government - though his fate was sealed in part by his conspiracy with his attorney general, Mitchell.

I hope Issa and the committe gets the materials, and finds who's responsible for what and holds them responsible... no matter where that leads. Seems the first step is finding Holder in contempt.... I think he's protecting some people within the WH staff.... and that's a shame. I think this could end up worse than Watergate. But, they need to investigate and find out, once and for all.

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers --- Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."